RetroSearch Browse

Wed Apr 27 14:06:25 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-April/144366.html

On 27.04.16 16:08, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 27 April 2016 at 17:14, Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think that we can resolve this issue by following steps:
>>
>> 1. Add a new function PyModule_AddObject2(), that steals a reference even on
>> failure.
>
> I'd suggest a variant on this that more closely matches the
> PyList_SetItem and PyTuple_SetItem cases: PyModule_SetAttrString
>
> The first two match the signature of PySequence_SetItem, but steal the
> reference instead of making a new one, and the same relationship would
> exist between PyObject_SetAttrString and the new
> PyModule_SetAttrString.

I think it is better to have relation with PyModule_AddIntConstant() etc 
than with PyObject_SetAttrString.

My patch doesn't introduce new public function, but changes the behavior 
of the old function. This needs minimal changes to user code that mostly 
use PyModule_AddObject() incorrectly (not blaming authors).

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-April/144366.html below:

[Python-Dev] Inconsistency of PyModule_AddObject()